I've had to struggle most of my life, everything I have I've had to work hard to earn. Right now I'm unemployed in a bad job market, and working on getting back into school. A large portion of what I know I've had to struggle through and learn myself.

My hope is that if I do have kids they will never have to struggle the way I've had to, I was born into a rather poor family, and my dad worked his a$$ off to become middle class finally earning ~70k a year. Would I ever torture my children with fire in the basement? Hell no, I don't want them to experience a fraction of the struggles I've had to.

I've had to struggle most of my life, everything I have I've had to work hard to earn. Right now I'm unemployed in a bad job market, and working on getting back into school. A large portion of what I know I've had to struggle through and learn myself.

And how do you think you'd deal with children who laughed in the face of your hard work and effort, refused to follow your example and showed a willingness to have you support them completely for as long as you were willing?

I've had to struggle most of my life, everything I have I've had to work hard to earn. Right now I'm unemployed in a bad job market, and working on getting back into school. A large portion of what I know I've had to struggle through and learn myself.

And how do you think you'd deal with children who laughed in the face of your hard work and effort, refused to follow your example and showed a willingness to have you support them completely for as long as you were willing?

That's not the point, and I don't know the answer, and I'm not equipped to answer it at the moment anyway. I'm not a parent.

If I do my job as a parent well, I will not every have to "make her work." I hope to inspire her to work. As my parents inspired me. To contribute to society. To create something. To discover something. To make a difference. I want her to make a good living. And I hope that she will never be greedy. That she will never feel entitled. That she will understand that none of us live in a silo, and that everything we do impacts on the world around us. That she will take pride in her accomplishments, and that she will treat everyone around her with respect.

I'm sure the vast majority of parents want that. And usually they can achieve that, as parents. However, somethimes the best parents can have children that for whattever reason simply refuse to listen or learn, and insist on being selfish.

You didn't really address Skeptic's question, did you? You essentially dismissed the perfectly legitimate scenario he raised and chose to instead discuss your own experiences and hopes. Whilst commendable, they are not relevant to the question.

How would you react, as a parent, to a child that insisted on playing no useful part in society and was determined to live in comfort through your efforts only? Would you allow it? Or would there be an ultimatum of sorts, at some point?

First of all, thank you to everyone who was gracious enough not to point out my numerous typos.

MM - I really think that nogodsforme addressed that question when she said:

If a 25 year old is unemployed, not in school and not at least helping out around the house, I would suspect substance abuse or depression, or both. Kicking them out into the street only hands the problem off onto society, ie the police and social services. It may come to that eventually, but I would not say that throwing a disobedient kid out is the best response of a "loving parent".

But that is what god did to Adam and Eve, so what do I know?

There are certainly substance abusers and depressed people, and people with other serious social, physical or mental issues who stay in their parents' homes. If this were my daughter's case, I would support her, and try and seek help.

I would hope that I would see the signs early. I might. I might not. But I certainly would not wake up one day and notice that she was 25 and still sleeping til noon and watching tv all day while emptying out the refrigerator.

My personal fears are of another nature. I'm an older mom. Quite a bit older than the parents of my daughter's peers. I've had a couple of health issues recently, and I find myself fearing that if I became sick, she would not prance off to college, but stay home and take care of me. That is not what I want for her.

@ Quesi ^^. That's all well and good, but it seems to me you are avoiding the question by refusing to see it as a possibility. Are you (you also NGFM) of the opinion that laziness is always (or very close to always) indicative of depression or another mental health problem? Is it possible that some children are just lazy bastards exploiting their parents love and care?

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me you are avoiding the question by refusing to see it as a possibility. Are you (you also NGFM) of the opinion that laziness is always (or very close to always) indicative of depression or another mental health problem? Is it possible that some children are just lazy bastards exploiting their parents love and care?

Who is this directed to?If it is to me, I've explained why I'm unable to answer; I'm not equipped to answer it honestly. If I answer it now it's just conjecture and not indicative of my real reaction if such a thing were to happen.

I've had to struggle most of my life, everything I have I've had to work hard to earn. Right now I'm unemployed in a bad job market, and working on getting back into school. A large portion of what I know I've had to struggle through and learn myself.

And how do you think you'd deal with children who laughed in the face of your hard work and effort, refused to follow your example and showed a willingness to have you support them completely for as long as you were willing?

That's not the point, and I don't know the answer, and I'm not equipped to answer it at the moment anyway. I'm not a parent.

Well, yes it is the point because it is the question asked by Skeptic. If you don't know the anser, you should say so up front before commenting further.

It's like being asked "How much do you like donuts"? and responding with a discussion on how much you're looking forward to chocolate later.

That's all well and good, but it seems to me you are avoiding the question by refusing to see it as a possibility. Are you (you also NGFM) of the opinion that laziness is always (or very close to always) indicative of depression or another mental health problem? Is it possible that some children are just lazy bastards exploiting their parents love and care?

Who is this directed to?If it is to me, I've explained why I'm unable to answer; I'm not equipped to answer it honestly. If I answer it now it's just conjecture and not indicative of my real reaction if such a thing were to happen.

Well, yes it is the point because it is the question asked by Skeptic. If you don't know the anser, you should say so up front before commenting further.

It's like being asked "How much do you like donuts"? and responding with a discussion on how much you're looking forward to chocolate later.

Except I wasn't answering Skeptic, therefore expecting me to address every point of a question I don't even know about won't help you.And I DID say I didn't know the answer, to your question.

Your initial post in this thread made the most sense to me in light of the question Skeptic asked about dealing with children who refused to work. If that is incorrect then I apologise and withdraw my comments.

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Your initial post in this thread made the most sense to me in light of the question Skeptic asked about dealing with children who refused to work. If that is incorrect then I apologise and withdraw my comments.

Thank you, I wasn't even aware he had posed such a question, I quickly read the first page, specifically the OP, and saw Quesi's post towards the end.

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

News flash: We aren't ancient Israelites.

No one claimed that, however it is the position of some theists that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore this passage should be taken seriously. Most Atheists[1] think it's all hogwash, but the bible gives us plenty of ammo against silly theist arguments. It's proof that even "biblical literalists" don't even know their own bible

No one claimed that, however it is the position of some theists that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore this passage should be taken seriously.

Of course it should be taken seriously. It's no trivial thing. But taking it seriously does not mean it can be applied out of context. Context matters, whether it suits your favourite arguments or not, and pointing out the context of a biblical passage is not an attempt at avoiding anything - it is an attempt at honesty and truth.

To use this passage as some sort of argument that modern day parents should stone their disobedient children is intellectually retarded in the biggest way.

To use this passage as some sort of argument that modern day parents should stone their disobedient children is intellectually retarded in the biggest way.

That's the point, that's what the post was about, to point out how ridiculous the bible is. Actually read it, cover to cover, especially the Old Testament, it's packed full of stuff like that. One of the primary reasons I don't take it seriously, I only own a bible because my mother bought me one when I was 8 and still going to church.[1]

You didn't really address Skeptic's question, did you? You essentially dismissed the perfectly legitimate scenario he raised and chose to instead discuss your own experiences and hopes. Whilst commendable, they are not relevant to the question.

Skeptic's questions were misleading, and his response to the one person who tried to answer them was a huge strawman. He acted as if G-Roll's comments were indicative of all atheists, rather than of just G-Roll. You should note that he went from talking about how some parents would kick their children out if they didn't obey the rules (the implication being that he was talking about actual children) to talking about how he didn't understand how atheists could let their grown children live with them if they refused to get a job.

This is something skeptic does quite a bit - responds to a point one way in one post, and a different way in a different post. He's as slippery as an eel when it comes to trying to pin what he's talking about down.

You didn't really address Skeptic's question, did you? You essentially dismissed the perfectly legitimate scenario he raised and chose to instead discuss your own experiences and hopes. Whilst commendable, they are not relevant to the question.

Skeptic's questions were misleading, and his response to the one person who tried to answer them was a huge strawman. He acted as if G-Roll's comments were indicative of all atheists, rather than of just G-Roll. You should note that he went from talking about how some parents would kick their children out if they didn't obey the rules (the implication being that he was talking about actual children) to talking about how he didn't understand how atheists could let their grown children live with them if they refused to get a job.

This is something skeptic does quite a bit - responds to a point one way in one post, and a different way in a different post. He's as slippery as an eel when it comes to trying to pin what he's talking about down.

Essentially there was no real answer? Good thing I wasn't addressing it then, that wouldn't have been fun.

Christians can't do that, median. Only God can because he is the Creator and Supreme King.

No, your god is a bully. "Might makes right" is not a morality worth following.

Quote

Since God is infinite, any sin against Him deserves infinite punishment.

You have this completely and utterly ass-backwards, Skeptic. The vast scope of an "infinite" being -- omnipotent and/or omnipresent and/or eternal -- suggests that it cannot be harmed by mortals unless it wants to be harmed (in which case, the "sinner" is actually doing its will and is off the hook). Thus, all "sins" are not infinite, but infinitesimal.

Quote

Since humans are not infinite, sins against us don't merit infinite punishment.

I have news for you, young man: There is nothing that merits infinite punishment. Ever. There are no exceptions to this rule, be one a god or be one a mortal.

To drive this point home once and for all, perhaps you should meditate on this:

Imagine that someone whom you love dearly has offended your god in some way. Your beloved has been sentenced to eternal punishment. In your imagination, spend one hour a day watching the torture of this person, without flinching or turning away. Look at the wounds. Listen to his or her scream for mercy, and listen for the utter silence and indifference of your god.

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

News flash: We aren't ancient Israelites.

What does that even mean?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

No one claimed that, however it is the position of some theists that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, therefore this passage should be taken seriously.

Of course it should be taken seriously. It's no trivial thing. But taking it seriously does not mean it can be applied out of context. Context matters, whether it suits your favourite arguments or not, and pointing out the context of a biblical passage is not an attempt at avoiding anything - it is an attempt at honesty and truth.

To use this passage as some sort of argument that modern day parents should stone their disobedient children is intellectually retarded in the biggest way.

How,because MAN has declared it? God commands it,man has now declared it obsolete,so the word of God can be ignored if it turns out MAN has better judgement?

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Deuteronomy 21: 18-21If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

News flash: We aren't ancient Israelites.

What does that even mean?

It means that the parts of the bible that don't make sense, are too cruel, or seem stupid because we have different cultural values--those don't apply to us.

Why it would ever be okay for the people to kill unruly children, let a rapist pay the woman's father and walk, enslave other ethnic groups, massacre entire cities, etc, is still not clear.

I've had to struggle most of my life, everything I have I've had to work hard to earn. Right now I'm unemployed in a bad job market, and working on getting back into school. A large portion of what I know I've had to struggle through and learn myself.

And how do you think you'd deal with children who laughed in the face of your hard work and effort, refused to follow your example and showed a willingness to have you support them completely for as long as you were willing?

I agree with others that this is kind of beside the point. The Bible god isn't punishing people for being kind of lazy. He/it is punishing people who simply don't believe in him/it. The unbeliever can be a very upstanding, moral, honest, hardworking, productive person but (according to the Bible) would still burn in a lake of fire.

As men left the Stone Age god to become more progressive the rule of God did not progress. The rules of the Stone Age god one by one were abandoned. Men did not leave their god behind as they progressed as humanity, just his barbaric and vengeful rules.

As a society progressed out of the Stone Age your god MM did not. His rules did not change just your view of them. The fact they were barbaric (the rules) and nonsensical you were forced to abandon them MM. You don't have to justify why you abandon the rules but the fact they were so barbaric in the first place

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

It means that the parts of the bible that don't make sense, are too cruel, or seem stupid because we have different cultural values--those don't apply to us.

That takes care of most of the Bible, then, because IMO most of it doesn't make sense, is too cruel or seems stupid. I think we can get by with Matthew 25:35-40, most of Ecclesiastes, a few bits and pieces out of Proverbs, and that clever courtroom "Gotcha!" in the apocryphal Susanna chapter of the book of Daniel.

You didn't really address Skeptic's question, did you? You essentially dismissed the perfectly legitimate scenario he raised and chose to instead discuss your own experiences and hopes. Whilst commendable, they are not relevant to the question.

Skeptic's questions were misleading, and his response to the one person who tried to answer them was a huge strawman. He acted as if G-Roll's comments were indicative of all atheists, rather than of just G-Roll. You should note that he went from talking about how some parents would kick their children out if they didn't obey the rules (the implication being that he was talking about actual children) to talking about how he didn't understand how atheists could let their grown children live with them if they refused to get a job.

I reviewed the exchange, and to be fair I don't think Skeptic originally intended for his use of 'children' to be confined to those teenaged or younger - I think he meant it to refer more widely to offspring of any age. It appears he overlooked G-Roll's attempt to clarify the age bracket.

In any event, I think the point he is trying to make is clear enough: sometimes a parent might be forced, through a childs own actions, to take action that could appear unloving if viewed out of context.

To use this passage as some sort of argument that modern day parents should stone their disobedient children is intellectually retarded in the biggest way.

That's the point, that's what the post was about, to point out how ridiculous the bible is. Actually read it, cover to cover, especially the Old Testament, it's packed full of stuff like that. One of the primary reasons I don't take it seriously, I only own a bible because my mother bought me one when I was 8 and still going to church.[1]